Pointer

@Angelo John Gage I just wanted to say that I find this discussion around stage red or blue in spiral dynamics, ego “selling” concepts of free will. I find the discussion uncomfortable and am grateful to have it given as such.

@Angelo John Gage Yes, I understand. Free will is unconditionally free and a condition of conscious people by the making of choices. Free will is a paradox and without a better concept to replace free will it remains a paradox. Another concept is to say that there are no choices that have not been made. There are only choices. Free will replaced by spontaneity and creativity. An unconscious person is uncreative. There is no 50/50, either you’re creative (self-actualized) or you’re a robot (ego driven). Here you (the ego) are the paradox, and upon self-inquiry the ego is replaced with a better concept... It is all accounted for.

@Angelo John Gage ”Making concious choices” means that consciousness is the same as making choices. Is this your view, conciousness as the base for all perception? 1) Conciousness as a base for all perceptions being contingent, free will is contingent. This is a materialist account. Paraphrase that into “making mindful choices”, and it means that awareness is the same as making choices. 2) This is free will taking into account the effort as “turning-of -attention-to”. This is an existentialist account. If I understand you correctly it is these two concepts that go into your 50/50 account of free will? 3) How about saying there is no free will, on account of nothing? 4) Free will is wonderful

@Angelo John Gage Is what you mean that where there is free will, what is the cause for free will? That is, to account for a choice takes effort. On the existentialist account, free will is the spontaneity arising from nothing? On another account, free will is nothing. These are accounts of free will.

One can also turn the argument around and say that all there is, is only everything. No nothing and only everything are meaningless statements, as such?

I view all “things” that are perceived to be constant, such as passage of time, as misconceptions. In the case of awareness of time, consciousness perceives spacetime as the dependence on every place in space to a place in time. Here is also the misconception of now to be found, there is no now, no time and no space because there is no nothing.

Th words “brain” and “exist” seem to cause so much suffering so why not go with the Buddha and take the middle way? Because I assume that “Leo” and ”the scientists” agree that to say “do not” does not exist? For “Leo” it is instantly obvious, the scientists gets it when failing enough experiments and the “do not” give the intended results is the only place left to find something to publish.